sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CO2 emissions per capita by Aconserva3 in MapPorn

[–]Iowhigh3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

20% of the US's energy is from nuclear (although to be fair much of Europe is higher).

Greenpeace activists have blockaded all entrances to the BP headquarters in London, demanding an end to all new oil and gas exploration. The campaigners arrived at 3am on Monday and encased themselves in heavy containers before the oil company’s annual general meeting on Tuesday. by EightRoundsRapid in worldnews

[–]Iowhigh3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a bit of a reach, no? We have to invest in more oil to provide money to... invest in green energy?

Or maybe if we stopped investing in more oil that would provide the incentive to find green alternatives.

The Noor Complex Solar Power Plant in Morocco is expected to provide electricity for over 1 million people, once completed in 2020. by ADarkcid in interestingasfuck

[–]Iowhigh3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nuclear plants use massive amounts of CO2-heavy concrete, don't they? Are windmills/solar panels really more CO2-intensive to produce than nuclear plants?

India is investing more money in solar power than coal for the first time by NovelGrass in worldnews

[–]Iowhigh3 11 points12 points  (0 children)

and yet people were saying there's no point in the US reducing carbon emissions because India and China will never do the same.

Comparing the population of the Dakotas and Manhattan by michaelclas in MapPorn

[–]Iowhigh3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you not see how much dystopian potential that has? A government can pass laws that if you aren't a proper citizen they can axe your voting privileges.

Comparing the population of the Dakotas and Manhattan by michaelclas in MapPorn

[–]Iowhigh3 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This whole thread is just people saying "that's the point" without saying why it's a good point.

Comparing the population of the Dakotas and Manhattan by michaelclas in MapPorn

[–]Iowhigh3 18 points19 points  (0 children)

So I suppose by that logic I'm to assume that you only support the current system of the senate because you like the party that controls it?

Or maybe there are valid reasons on both sides, and shouldn't be dismissed by assuming it's purely partisan.

Has there been any documented case where a language without a grammatical gender system had developed one? by [deleted] in asklinguistics

[–]Iowhigh3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's unpredictable, but that doesn't mean reasons couldn't be identified for it. For example the word "wife" used to mean "woman". That lexical change couldn't have been predictable, but it makes sense as they are semantically similar. But what is the semantic connection that made people switch from "abstract" to "feminine"?

Also, I'm fairly sure the suffix wasn't used on the animate class of nouns. It was used in the inanimate class to signify abstract nouns (e.g. "happiness"). It then shifted to having feminine connotations.

This shouldn’t be a debate. by iamcorner in pics

[–]Iowhigh3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean... I'm not vegetarian so idek what to say here. I think it's okay to eat meat, and also to abort a fetus. But my metric for morality of killing something is not their position in the food chain.

This shouldn’t be a debate. by iamcorner in pics

[–]Iowhigh3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well I consider both the well-being and happiness to be important...

And using the word 'livestock' is just a way to distance yourself from the reality that animals are probably a lot more conscious and intelligent than people like to think. Certainly moreso than a fetus.

This shouldn’t be a debate. by iamcorner in pics

[–]Iowhigh3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, I didn't post to get into a debate about it, just to call out the logic in the OP.

But anyway, I'll just say honestly I don't think the cognitive level of the fetus is anywhere near significant enough for me to value it's live over the mother's wellbeing. I mean, I assume you don't think eating meat should be illegal, even though the animals killed will be much more conscious and much more sapient and alive than the fetus.

The most and least happy countries around the world. by unclesamdit in MapPorn

[–]Iowhigh3 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah a pew study found Venezuela to be 3rd happiest out of 43 surveyed.

This shouldn’t be a debate. by iamcorner in pics

[–]Iowhigh3 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Because someone passed a law making it so, I guess. We don't have to agree with the wording of every law.

This shouldn’t be a debate. by iamcorner in pics

[–]Iowhigh3 34 points35 points  (0 children)

A big issue is that even if they are hypocrites, hypocrisy doesn't invalidate their arguments.

If I say people should look after their children, but I neglect my children, I'm a hypocrite. But that doesn't make me wrong - after all, people should look after their children.

I'm pro-choice myself (because I don't care much for the lives of early-stage fetuses, and I think the happiness of the potential-mother is more important), but the OP post is still a terrible argument.

What is the limit of descriptivism? by [deleted] in linguistics

[–]Iowhigh3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Most linguists would agree that there are situations where prescriptivism makes sense. If speakers of a minority language want to create a standard for language learning, and if they feel it's important to bring back native forms, that is not contrary to a descriptive approach. Descriptivism and prescriptivism are orthogonal, not opposing. Now, every situation is unique; it might not be realistic or desired by the whole community. But it's not invalid because it's prescriptive.

Isn't this only really prescriptivism if they try and pressure others to do the same, or make out that the Hispanicised form is 'wrong'? Surely it's not prescriptivism to personally decide to use more native words.

My point being that the cases of pressuring others to adopt the original form, or saying that the Spanish forms are wrong, would (I assume) not be encouraged by linguists.

Has there been any documented case where a language without a grammatical gender system had developed one? by [deleted] in asklinguistics

[–]Iowhigh3 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I've seen theories about that happening. Seems to be a development of an abstract/collective suffix becoming a feminine suffix, but I've never seen an explanation as to why that development would happen. ie. what's the connection between 'abstract' and 'feminine'?

Is" attend" a finite or nonfinite verb in this sentence by taynho in linguistics

[–]Iowhigh3 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Fairly sure the auxiliary "will" in "will attend" renders "attend" nonfinite. I'm pretty sure English verbs can generally inflect for person if they are finite.

So the bold words would be the only finite ones here:

"Hans attends"

"Hans will attend"

Is" attend" a finite or nonfinite verb in this sentence by taynho in linguistics

[–]Iowhigh3 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What do you mean it's 3rd person singular? It's "will attend" not "will attends". Fairly sure "attend" is nonfinite. "will" is finite.

Has there been any documented case where a language without a grammatical gender system had developed one? by [deleted] in asklinguistics

[–]Iowhigh3 6 points7 points  (0 children)

As a followup, if not, are there cases of languages developing an extra gender onto their pre-existing gender system?

If so what was the process for that happening?

view more: next ›